Mozilla execs want change to ballot screen proposal

[Subject Delta]

Computerworld - Mozilla executives today began a concerted campaign to prod European Union (EU) antitrust regulators to demand more from Microsoft than the browser "ballot screen" Windows will offer users later this year.

Both Mitchell Baker, the former CEO of Mozilla and the chairwoman of Mozilla Foundation, and Harvey Anderson, Mozilla's chief counsel, posted lengthy blogs, citing concerns with Microsoft's proposal and spelling out changes they want to see.

John Lilly, Mozilla's current CEO, confirmed that the messages from Mitchell and Anderson were part of a company-wide plan. "It's part of our effort to get across our point of view," he said in an interview. "In principle, [Microsoft's proposal] sounds good, but in practice, the way they implement it will make a big difference."

Mozilla's top executives were reacting to a proposal Microsoft submitted July 24, when it told Brussels-based antitrust officials that it would give Windows users a chance to download rivals' browsers.

A key part of that plan would be a "ballot screen" that EU Windows users would see if IE was set as the default browser. Under Microsoft's proposal, the ballot will offer links to downloads of Mozilla's Firefox, Apple's Safari, Google's Chrome and Opera Software's Opera.

In January 2009, the European Commission filed charges against Microsoft, accusing the company of shielding IE from competition by including it with Windows. Since then, Microsoft has made several moves, including offering a "kill switch" in Windows 7 that lets users disable IE, to fend off fines and even tougher antitrust actions against its software.

The commission's charges stemmed from a December 2007 complaint filed by Norwegian browser maker Opera.

Today, Baker, who has been blogging regularly on the topic since January, argued that if the proposal is accepted, IE will still enjoy most-favored-browser status.

"Even if everything in the currently proposed settlement is implemented in the most positive way, IE will still have a unique and uniquely privileged position on Windows installations," Baker said. She listed several aspects of the proposal that trouble Mozilla, including IE's continued prominence on the desktop, the unfair advantage IE would have even if other browsers can be downloaded, and the possibility that Microsoft might try to convince users to switch back to IE through manipulation of Windows Update, the operating system's default update service.

"The importance of the myriad of details makes it very difficult to predict how effective the proposed remedies will be, or the extent of any side-effects," Baker said.

While Baker used broader strokes to paint the proposal as unclear at best, unfair at worst, Anderson got down to specifics. Among his concerns: Windows Update; IE's ties with other Microsoft software, particularly Office; the download conundrum competitors face; and Microsoft's plan not to eliminate IE if the user chooses an alternative.

On the Windows Update front, Anderson countered with an idea of Mozilla's own. "The proposal should be modified to expressly state that Microsoft cannot use Windows Update to trigger any 'Make IE the default' consideration unless the user launched IE intentionally and not just as a requirement of another process," he said, fearing that Microsoft would unfairly leverage the update service.

Anderson also questioned the download link part of the proposed ballot screen. Saying that a link was "insufficient," and citing Mozilla data that claims only about 55% of its users who click a download link actually complete the installation process, he said the link should trigger both a download of the alternate browser and its installation. He also called on the commission to make Microsoft add a launch of the browser maker's instruction page to the process.

"Obviously this & will take some thinking, and to make it really work, we would strongly recommend that the proposal include a Microsoft commitment to work with browser vendors directly in an informal group, including the commission, so the ballot implementation can be informed by the knowledge and experience of other browser providers," Anderson urged.

Both Microsoft and the commission have been mum about the chances the latter will accept the former's proposal. Two weeks ago, however, Microsoft was confident enough that the commission would take the deal that it abandoned plans to ship Windows 7 without IE to EU customers. That idea, which Microsoft had first floated in early June, would have shipped the new operating system this fall sans IE. Computer makers were expected to pre-load one or more browsers onto new PCs, while users upgrading would face the tough task of getting a browser without the means to reach the Internet.

"I wouldn't know how to handicap it," said Mozilla's Lilly today when asked whether he thinks EU acceptance of Microsoft's proposal is likely.

Lilly acknowledged that Mozilla, which was granted "interested third-party" status to the antitrust case last spring, has not submitted its concerns to the commission. "We've been in contact with the commission all along, but we haven't communicated these to them yet," Lilly said.

He also echoed comments first expressed by Opera last month, when that company's chief technology officer called on Microsoft to extend the ballot concept worldwide. "My hope is that whether or not the commission and Microsoft decide to revise the proposal, that Microsoft will take [our concerns] to heart," Lilly said. "It's all about what makes it best for the users, so hopefully Microsoft will take that into account and do this not just in the EU, but that it starts to look like this across the world."

EU regulators have not set a timetable for a final decision on Microsoft's proposal, but sources close to Microsoft have said they expect a resolution before the end of October, both because of the launch of Windows 7 that month and because the current commissioner for competition, Neelie Kroes, steps down Oct. 31.

Source: Computerworld

[CuCumber]

Mozilla executives today began a concerted campaign to prod European Union (EU) antitrust regulators to demand more from Microsoft

Priceless! Wonder what the Official Neowin Microsoft Defenders Group has to say right now.

[jmc777]

We'd be on page 3 by now if this was about Opera Software. I hope all the whiny cry-babies from the Opera threads have stocked up on man-sized tissues.

[AltecXP]

I just want to know why no ones bitching about OSX/Safari or itunes/iPod yet. IMO they are the same if not worse then IE/Windows. Safari wont even let you change Search engines.

[Septimus]

Oh just **** off Mozilla and take Opera with you. This is done. You have good market share, wtf more do you want?

[Argi]

INC OPERA FLAMES... o wait, it's Mozilla... NEVERMIND.

[Steven P. Administrators]

"Even if everything in the currently proposed settlement is implemented in the most positive way, IE will still have a unique and uniquely privileged position on Windows installations," Baker said

Um, Microsoft made Windows and added the capability to browse the Internet with it. I still don't see whats wrong here?

Now if Microsoft forced Apple to include IE with OS X then I could see issues with it. Its hypocrisy that Mozilla doesn't ask the same of Apple, who also have their own branded browser, Safari.

[mad_onion]

Oh just **** off Mozilla and take Opera with you. This is done. You have good market share, wtf more do you want?

well, I completely see what you mean but I can also see why Mozilla and Opera are pushing this so hard. the ballot screen is a big step forward for them but it might be the best chance they get in a long time to level the playing field. they want to get the most out of it that they can. you really can't blame them.

[Simon Veteran]

All seem like legitimate requests, especially taking this worldwide...

@Windows .net, it's because Apple simply doesn't have as much importance. iPod and iTunes are probably going to be a target soon, but OS X has so little market share compared to Windows that it's simply a waste of time to try and convince them to change their ways. I agree that it's unfair, but the EU knows that they have to pick their battles according to importance.

[Pc_Madness]

[/size]1460652']

I just want to know why no ones bitching about OSX/Safari or itunes/iPod yet. IMO they are the same if not worse then IE/Windows. Safari wont even let you change Search engines.

And your opinion would be wrong.

APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY THERE FOR IT CAN DO WHAT IT PLEASES

Seriously. Hopefully people will notice this so we don't get 20 other posts like it.

(iTunes might not be an issue any more since you can use any device with music off of iTunes)

I was thinking about this actually... the ballot screen being inside of IE isn't really fair for MS. What if an OEM installs Firefox / Chrome as the default browser, then the user is never given the choice which is what this is all about. :p

[MistaT40]

Of course MS is going to "connect" IE with Office - it's their products. Just like Adobe ties in all their products - you don't see them "connecting" Adobe Premiere with Corel Photoshop.

[CuCumber]

I just want to know why no ones bitching about OSX/Safari or itunes/iPod yet. IMO they are the same if not worse then IE/Windows. Safari wont even let you change Search engines.

:blink: I thought even the slowest had understood that as long as Apple doesn't hold majority of desktop marketshare and abuse that position, it can bundle even iCrapper toilet seat with OS X.

[MarkusDarkus]

But will this actually affect us in any way? So what if there is a ballot screen. that just means I don't have to use goggle to get to the site to download my favourite browser. If Opera is as bad as you all say It'll be shown up and give itself a worse reputation. As far as I can see, the only people to be annoyed are Microsoft.

[DrCheese]

Yeah, except OSX/Safari has never really gone above 10% market share so you can't argue that they are a monopoly and abusing their position.

[The Teej]

"The importance of the myriad of details makes it very difficult to predict how effective the proposed remedies will be, or the extent of any side-effects,"

Well, no ****, we've been saying this all along. However, the monkeys at EU didn't seem to give a **** and constantly forced this proposed method for ages. It is *not* Microsoft's fault for the lack of EU's foresight.

While Baker used broader strokes to paint the proposal as unclear at best, unfair at worst, Anderson got down to specifics. Among his concerns: Windows Update; IE's ties with other Microsoft software, particularly Office; the download conundrum competitors face; and Microsoft's plan not to eliminate IE if the user chooses an alternative.

Since when does Windows Update or Office heavily rely on IE? Also, if the user makes a conscious decision to choose something else other then IE, does it really matter if it's on the user's HDD? He probably won't use it anyway. If the user uses Firefox, or Opera, and then says "No, thanks, I don't like this" and then switches back to IE - it means you've ****ed up, not MS.

He also echoed comments first expressed by Opera last month, when that company's chief technology officer called on Microsoft to extend the ballot concept worldwide.

Won't happen, because nobody else actually gives a ****. Surprisingly, those who really care about different browsers already use different browsers.

EDIT: DrCheese - Apple are 100% abusing their monopoly by only supplying Macs with OSX, despite the fact that Macs can run Windows and Linux by itself, and they refuse to outsource production and sale of Macs to other companies. They also abuse their monopoly on the iPhone by only allowing Safari on there.

[Denis W. Veteran]

Like I was saying all along, they - Mozilla, Opera, Google (well, Google hasn't said much lately) - are all in the same boat when it comes to the proposal. Why one was heavily singled out as the scapegoat for a long time is beyond me.

In any case, most of the users who object to these proposals - I sort of do to be honest, I kind of find this entire affair a bit over the top and unnecessary - should be reminded that at the end of the day, their choice of browser will remain with them regardless of a browser ballot screen or not. Sure, we could see some marketshare numbers shifting a bit, but what else beyond that?

[mitchartz]

And your opinion would be wrong.

APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY THERE FOR IT CAN DO WHAT IT PLEASES

Seriously. Hopefully people will notice this so we don't get 20 other posts like it.

(iTunes might not be an issue any more since you can use any device with music off of iTunes)

I was thinking about this actually... the ballot screen being inside of IE isn't really fair for MS. What if an OEM installs Firefox / Chrome as the default browser, then the user is never given the choice which is what this is all about. :p

So based on your idea's because Microsoft has been successful in the past we need to force them to change there business so that others which already have a decent market share can catch up? It's not like IE is 95% of the browser usage and Mozilla isn't taking more and more market share.

If they are going to do this, they need to make it level for everyone otherwise in the future the situation could switch and they will have to waste money going through all of this again with another company just make it mandatory now and don't wait for a monopoly to happen.

Also I think the ballot screen would probably just be an html doc that is set to be opened no matter what browser is first installed which in 99% of Windows cases would be IE on install.

[Treemonkeys]

I am never using Firefox again, I'm uninstalling it right now.

[The Teej]

Like I was saying all along, they - Mozilla, Opera, Google (well, Google hasn't said much lately) - are all in the same boat when it comes to the proposal. Why one was heavily singled out as the scapegoat for a long time is beyond me.

In any case, most of the users who object to these proposals - I sort of do to be honest, I kind of find this entire affair a bit over the top and unnecessary - should be reminded that at the end of the day, their choice of browser will remain with them regardless of a browser ballot screen or not. Sure, we could see some marketshare numbers shifting a bit, but what else beyond that?

How about delays to Windows 7 in Europe thanks to these idiots complaining about trivial issues?

[Denis W. Veteran]

Also I think the ballot screen would probably just be an html doc that is set to be opened no matter what browser is first installed which in 99% of Windows cases would be IE on install.

Or they could use what's provided already: the Getting Started/Welcome Center window. If they insist that having a browser ballot screen is this important, they could pop up a sub-page of the Welcome Center window that fetches a list of updated browser links and displays it within that window, no IE necessary (I'm pretty sure the shell can do this). Then keep a link in the main Welcome Center page for future use if need be.

But ideally I wouldn't want to see that; it was annoying in Vista to remember to turn off the Welcome Center after a fresh install.

How about delays to Windows 7 in Europe thanks to these idiots complaining about trivial issues?

I guess that might be the case...

even so, they could just issue a mandatory patch via Windows Update that patches in this behaviour into the OS if the final decision takes place after Windows 7's general availability date.

[ilovetech]

Um, Microsoft made Windows and added the capability to browse the Internet with it. I still don't see whats wrong here?

Now if Microsoft forced Apple to include IE with OS X then I could see issues with it. Its hypocrisy that Mozilla doesn't ask the same of Apple, who also have their own branded browser, Safari.

correct. even google will bundle chrome with their OS. will mozilla then complain to Google also? apparently no. & neither google will even bother to have "ballot" screen.

Mozilla is already shipped as bundled browser with linux distro, safari with OS X, Chrome with google OS , so what's the problem if MS ship IE with windows?

[lamminium]

I am never using Firefox again, I'm uninstalling it right now.

You're not serious, right? lol

[Lechio]

Priceless! Wonder what the Official Neowin Microsoft Defenders Group has to say right now.

Priceless indeed. :laugh:

Of course MS is going to "connect" IE with Office - it's their products. Just like Adobe ties in all their products - you don't see them "connecting" Adobe Premiere with Corel Photoshop.

There's a small difference between Microsoft and Adobe. Microsoft makes the OS and bundles/(connects?) everything with it.

[BajiRav]

Mozilla : Stop whining. This is what you get for sleeping with Opera :laugh: They have infected you!!!!

In all seriousness, this is getting stupider by the day. EU seriously needs to grow a brain or two. :s What are Mozilla/Opera's plans for allowing users to choose other browser via ballot after their respective browsers are launched?

All the "concerns" that Mozilla raised are decidedly stupid! if not dumb.

[Andrew Lyle Global Moderator]

This issue is so old, it is like beating the dead horse once again.

I don't see why Microsoft should have to include any browser in their software.. and why stop at browsers? why not include a bunch of bloatware while we are at it. It should come with AIM, Yahoo Messenger, WLM, ICQ and more messenger clients, so you spend the first hour or so uninstalling this crap.